Author
Topic: Gun Control (Read 4430 times)

The second amendment of the United States Constitution states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Obviously the need for a state militia has been replaced by the National Guard and Coast Guard whereby trained military personnel are entrusted with the defense of this country against domestic enemies. Their weapons are tightly controlled and safeguarded.

The only two reasons for a citizen to own a firearm are for hunting or defense of the household from intruders. In either case, ownership of a handgun, shotgun or rifle is more than adequate to satisfy these purposes. There is absolutely no need for any U.S. civilian to own any weapon more powerful or sophisticated than these.

Accordingly, all handguns, shotguns and rifles must be licensed and registered to the degree necessary to match weapon to owner at the click of a computer key. Furthermore, we must guarantee that the mentally ill do not gain access to them under any circumstances. Finally, if we had prohibited the purchase of more sophisticated weapons several innocent victims would not have died or been harmed at shopping malls, college campuses, Congressional meetings, churches, and now concerts. We as a country must deal with this issue immediately lest our society fall back to the days when everyone carried a holster.

While I agree in theory, Kent State fucked up the idea that our sons, as soldiers, would not kill our unarmed sisters and brothers(not to ignore Haymarket et al). This being proven wrong gives credence that the populace should be armed against the tyranny of the state. While the general populace in a given "area" could not compete against the military. Over all, the military "most likely" would not be able to kill the populace. I once wrote: "Tis easy to quell a dare in Tiannamen Square...but not in the land of Yosemite Sam." If a case could ever be made that the only reason a people remained free was that it was armed, then we would be that case. Unfortunately, plenty of countries exist where they do indeed have the same freedom and better security with less armored populace. Again,,using the word "unfortunately" with trump in office...I cannot at this date argue for the reduction of arms among the populace when we have a heavy rise in white nationalism that really worries me.

Logged

A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

The second amendment of the United States Constitution states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Obviously the need for a state militia has been replaced by the National Guard and Coast Guard whereby trained military personnel are entrusted with the defense of this country against domestic enemies. Their weapons are tightly controlled and safeguarded.

The only two reasons for a citizen to own a firearm are for hunting or defense of the household from intruders. In either case, ownership of a handgun, shotgun or rifle is more than adequate to satisfy these purposes. There is absolutely no need for any U.S. civilian to own any weapon more powerful or sophisticated than these.

Accordingly, all handguns, shotguns and rifles must be licensed and registered to the degree necessary to match weapon to owner at the click of a computer key. Furthermore, we must guarantee that the mentally ill do not gain access to them under any circumstances. Finally, if we had prohibited the purchase of more sophisticated weapons several innocent victims would not have died or been harmed at shopping malls, college campuses, Congressional meetings, churches, and now concerts. We as a country must deal with this issue immediately lest our society fall back to the days when everyone carried a holster.

It was never like that, just ask the Clantons at the OK Corral. They were guilty of gun violations in the city limits of Tombstone in 1882. The county marshal refused to enforce the law, the city cops (the Earps) insisted on enforcing the law. I would take the Old West any day. That was what freedom looked like (unless you were Native American of course). And lots of legalized prostitution ...

While I agree in theory, Kent State fucked up the idea that our sons, as soldiers, would not kill our unarmed sisters and brothers(not to ignore Haymarket et al). This being proven wrong gives credence that the populace should be armed against the tyranny of the state. While the general populace in a given "area" could not compete against the military. Over all, the military "most likely" would not be able to kill the populace. I once wrote: "Tis easy to quell a dare in Tiannamen Square...but not in the land of Yosemite Sam." If a case could ever be made that the only reason a people remained free was that it was armed, then we would be that case. Unfortunately, plenty of countries exist where they do indeed have the same freedom and better security with less armored populace. Again,,using the word "unfortunately" with trump in office...I cannot at this date argue for the reduction of arms among the populace when we have a heavy rise in white nationalism that really worries me.

I disagree with you on the military part because, at the end of the day, what is a 9mm or even a 20-30 round 5.56 civilian AR going to do against people with tanks and drones? However I can see your point with the white nationalism and needing to defend yourself against them, at least now that the state has proven they won't be the ones to defend you.

I still disagree with guns being the answer and think we would be much better off taking them all away and melting them down, but that is one of the few arguments I have seen that actually makes me consider them having a valid use in our society.

I disagree with you on the military part because, at the end of the day, what is a 9mm or even a 20-30 round 5.56 civilian AR going to do against people with tanks and drones? However I can see your point with the white nationalism and needing to defend yourself against them, at least now that the state has proven they won't be the ones to defend you.

I still disagree with guns being the answer and think we would be much better off taking them all away and melting them down, but that is one of the few arguments I have seen that actually makes me consider them having a valid use in our society.

Society is a shit, yet you trust society? Not that you or I want to be predators. And neither of us have self-defense fantasies. I would prefer for the cops (the Earps) to do their job, so I don't have to form my own posse. But the conspiracy theories and utopias ...

We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the young for a long long time."PZ Myers

I disagree with you on the military part because, at the end of the day, what is a 9mm or even a 20-30 round 5.56 civilian AR going to do against people with tanks and drones? However I can see your point with the white nationalism and needing to defend yourself against them, at least now that the state has proven they won't be the ones to defend you.

I still disagree with guns being the answer and think we would be much better off taking them all away and melting them down, but that is one of the few arguments I have seen that actually makes me consider them having a valid use in our society.

The big "deal" breaker in todays world is our social media. I would think (hope) that with instant communication with mom and dad and sis and bro that our soldiers would be far more hesitant to open fire on a college crowd, but I will not take that test myself. I am assured that the military would open fire on a "mob" mentality but to go off and start hunting peeps in small towns? I think social media and pressure would put most soldiers at ease so to speak. But what do you guys think? Does anyone really think our sons and daughters would start invading towns and ransacking houses?

Logged

A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

The big "deal" breaker in todays world is our social media. I would think (hope) that with instant communication with mom and dad and sis and bro that our soldiers would be far more hesitant to open fire on a college crowd, but I will not take that test myself. I am assured that the military would open fire on a "mob" mentality but to go off and start hunting peeps in small towns? I think social media and pressure would put most soldiers at ease so to speak. But what do you guys think? Does anyone really think our sons and daughters would start invading towns and ransacking houses?

Not reliably. This is why all serious conspiracy theories involve blue helmet (UN) troops. They have been used elsewhere, why not in the US, to pacify a rogue country?

The big "deal" breaker in todays world is our social media. I would think (hope) that with instant communication with mom and dad and sis and bro that our soldiers would be far more hesitant to open fire on a college crowd, but I will not take that test myself. I am assured that the military would open fire on a "mob" mentality but to go off and start hunting peeps in small towns? I think social media and pressure would put most soldiers at ease so to speak. But what do you guys think? Does anyone really think our sons and daughters would start invading towns and ransacking houses?

Remember that 3% of Americans own half the guns. That would be the revolting (sic) element, not the government. They don't have a military infrastructure, no national or even state command structure, no logistical support. The Army's job would be half done if they took those idiots out.

But that's not what any rational person wants. 97% of Americans own one gun or less. They're not worried about the "government coming for their guns". And the hard right makes more noise about "they're coming for our guns" than the left.

We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the young for a long long time."PZ Myers

The big "deal" breaker in todays world is our social media. I would think (hope) that with instant communication with mom and dad and sis and bro that our soldiers would be far more hesitant to open fire on a college crowd, but I will not take that test myself. I am assured that the military would open fire on a "mob" mentality but to go off and start hunting peeps in small towns? I think social media and pressure would put most soldiers at ease so to speak. But what do you guys think? Does anyone really think our sons and daughters would start invading towns and ransacking houses?

Get people scared and angry enough, and you can get them to do anything you like.

We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the young for a long long time."PZ Myers